Slow, cumbersome and expensive - Lovick

Page 9

The patience of British Columbia First Nations is running out with the never ending treaty process and, with the possibility of the Liberal party being the next provincial government, the situation looks menacing.

On June 16 the First Nations called a meeting with the governments of Canada and the province to express their frustration with the lack of commitment to treaty negotiations.

"I am certainly as aware as anybody of the frustration that certain First Nations are feeling with the process because it is slow, cumbersome and it is expensive," said Aboriginal Affairs Minister, Dale Lovick. "The trouble is all the alternatives seem to be worse. We have tried believe me to look at ways to improve and speed up and otherwise make more effective the process, but those are hard to put in place."

In speaking of the alternatives Lovick was referring to the Liberal Party that openly oppose the treaty process. The Liberals intend to have provincial referendums on all treaty negotiations, if they are elected.

"If they get elected they have made it very clear that they are pretty hostile toward Aboriginal issues," said Grand Chief Edward John of the First Nations Summit. "We've been doing some thinking about it but I'm not going to worry a hell of a lot about it because we're not there yet. We'll see what the people of BC decide in the election and then figure it out from there."

The treaty commission process began in 1993 (after the BC Claims Task Force recommended it be established in a 1991 report) and Native leaders feel that both the federal and provincial governments have not lived up to the initial principles they agreed to.

"This has been so slow and that is why right from day one in 91 we have been saying we need some interim measures in place." said John. "But both governments have been reluctant to address that. It is critical that we see interim measures in forestry and lands, both for protection measures and benefits measures."

As the situation has intensified the First Nations Summit and the Union of British Columbia Indian Chiefs have joined forces. Although the two groups have had a hostile relationship in the past they have now collaborated to address the issue of Aboriginal title.

"I think it is important that we are on the same side," said John. "And understand the reasons why we are on the same side and where we differ. But I think there is common ground that we need to build upon and that is to have the federal comprehensive claims review. We've been saying that needs to be reviewed and we'll continue to push for review notwithstanding what the federal government has to say on it. We think it is important that there be a review of the policy in light of Supreme Court rulings."

Comprehensive land claims are based upon confirming Aboriginal title to lands and resources. The 1986 Comprehensive Land Claims Policy reinforced Aboriginal rights on lands at the closure of claim settlements.

First Nations are concerned about extinguishment of Aboriginal title in treaty negotiations and are requesting the review of the policy to investigate extinguishment. In light of the policy they want the 1997 Supreme Court of Canada's Delgamuukw decision that asserted Aboriginal title to be utilized in treaty negotiations.

"We think we have made it very clear that we are absolutely willing to say and indeed have no difficulty whatsoever in saying that Aboriginal title does exist," said Lovick. "That's never been an issue as far as I am concerned, we have signed on to that for at least the last six years. Where it got difficult I think is that people wanted to question the certainty language we used in Nisga'a. Some argued that the language we used in Nisga'a amounted to extinguishment. And we said absolutely not, that is absolutely not the case."

The Sechelt band's recent decision to pull out of the agreement-in-principle they signed in April of 1999 has incited growing concerns about the possibility of coming to final trety agreements.

"As we have learned recently that agreements in principle is not a guarantee either (referring to Sechelt), although we thought it would be. It is still the case that agreement in principle is still the best indicator. Once you have one of those that shows you're well on your way to getting a treaty," said Lovick. "If First Nations still have any concerns of what the basic mandate is that the BC government brings to the table you can find it essentially by looking at the Nisga'a Treaty and the Sechelt agreement in principle. What you will see there is pretty clearly a range of options people can choose from."

Newly elected First Nations Summit task group member, Kathryn Teneese feels that federal and provincial governments need to go through an unlearning process in order for treaty agreements to move forward.

"We continue to be faced with the same attitudes. We are suppose to be talking on a Nation to Nation basis and we are faced with having to deal with bureaucracy and that makes it extremely frustrating," said Teneese. "Especially when you are dealing with people who have difficulty seeing outside of the box they have created throughout the years."

As the political time frame for the New Democratic Party comes to a close, the government continues to struggle in reaching agreement with the First Nations.

"What we have heard from First Nations is that there just isn't frankly enough on the table and what we are saying is that we are endeavoring to put a little more on the table," said Lovick. "But we are not going to, by the same token, say it's a blank cheque or you on the other side of the table can have whatever you want."